Jeff Raymond v. Medford, City of - Police Department (SPR 20231778)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records August 15, 2023 SPR23/1778 Lieutenant Joseph Casey Records Access Officer Medford Police Department 100 Main Street Medford, MA 02155 Dear Lieutenant Casey: I have received the petition of Jeff Raymond, of the Bramanville Tribune, appealing the response of the Medford Police Department (Department) to his request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On April 16, 2023, Mr. Raymond requested “any responsive documents and/or communications concerning your municipality’s police department and its compliance with the Massachusetts Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) Commission’s duties under Chapter 253 of the Acts of 2020 to create a ‘database listing complaints against police officers,’ as detailed below.” Specifically, Mr. Raymond requested: [1.] A copy of the document your police department sent to the POST Commission, likely sent between November 2021 and June of 2022, providing the information requested by the POST Commission for its “database listing complaints against police officers” planned for May of 2022…. [2.] Copies of any relevant responsive communications between a) your police department and/or your town officials and b) the POST Commission in regard to the database planned for May of 2022 as detailed above and/or compliance with the reporting for said database between the dates of July 1, 2021 and December 31, 2022, broadly construed…. [3.] Copies of any relevant responsive communications within or between a) your police department and b) your municipal administration in regard to this database and/or compliance with this mandate between the dates of July 1, 2021 and December 31, 2022, broadly construed…. [4.] Information concerning “complaints against police officers” issued in the calendar year 2022 and through March 31, 2023, preferably in the same format One Ashburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 • (617) 727-2832• Fax: (617) 727-5914 sec.state.ma.us/pre • pre@sec.state.ma.us

Lieutenant Joseph Casey SPR23/1778 Page 2 August 15, 2023 used for the information sent to POST between November 2021 and June of 2022 for the earlier-mentioned database…. [5.] A copy of the document your police department sent to the POST Commission as sent to the POST Commission, likely sent between December 1, 2022 and April 9, 2023, to comply with the “2023 POST Commission Disciplinary Records Resubmission”…. [6.] Copies of any relevant responsive communications within or between a) your police department and b) your municipal administration in regard to this database and/or compliance with the “2023 POST Commission Disciplinary Records Resubmission” described above. Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR23/1326 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (July 3, 2023). In my July 3rd determination, I ordered the Department to provide Mr. Raymond with a response to his request. On July 24, 2023, the Department responded. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Raymond petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR23/1778, was opened as a result. The Public Records Law The Public Records Law strongly favors disclosure by creating a presumption that all governmental records are public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A(d); 950 C.M.R. 32.03(4). “Public records” is broadly defined to include all documentary materials or data, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received by any officer or employee of any agency or municipality of the Commonwealth, unless falling within a statutory exemption. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26). It is the burden of the records custodian to demonstrate the application of an exemption in order to withhold a requested record. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3); see also Dist. Att’y for the Norfolk Dist. v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507, 511 (1995) (custodian has the burden of establishing the applicability of an exemption). To meet the specificity requirement a custodian must not only cite an exemption, but must also state why the exemption applies to the withheld or redacted portion of the responsive record. If there are any fees associated with a response a written, good faith estimate must be provided. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(viii); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2). Once fees are paid, a records custodian must provide the responsive records. Current Appeal In his appeal, Mr. Raymond states, “[o]n 24 July 2023, I received a response that merely restated the fee schedule and did not address the redactions. I requested information on the status

Lieutenant Joseph Casey SPR23/1778 Page 3 August 15, 2023 of the unredacted documents and did not receive a response.” Redacted Records In my July 3rd determination, I stated that, “[b]ased upon the update to Exemption (c) where the amendment states that this, ‘subclause shall not apply to records related to a law enforcement misconduct investigation,’ it is unclear how the requested records can be redacted pursuant to Exemption (c).” See SPR23/1326 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (July 3, 2023). I also stated: In regard to the Department’s response where it cites Exemptions (d) and (f) of the Public Records Law to withhold and redact the responsive records, the Department’s response did not contain the specificity required in a denial of access to public records. The Department merely cites Exemptions (d) and (f) without any explanation of the applicability of the exemptions to the responsive records. Any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). See SPR23/1326 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (July 3, 2023). Based on the Department’s July 24th response and Mr. Raymond’s appeal, the Department has not addressed these matters, which relate to “the enclosed charts” that were provided to Mr. Raymond on May 2, 2023. Items 3 and 6 – Communications Fee estimate – municipalities A municipality may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.05) per page may be assessed for a black and white single or double-sided photocopy of a public record. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(i). Municipalities may not assess a fee for the first (two) 2 hours of employee time to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce the record or records requested unless the municipality has 20,000 people or less. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii). Where appropriate, municipalities may include as part of the fee an hourly rate equal to or less than the hourly rate attributed to the lowest paid employee who has the necessary skill required to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce a record requested, but the fee shall not be more than $25 per hour. Id. However, municipalities may charge more than $25 per hour if such rate is approved by the Supervisor of Records under a petition under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). A fee shall not be assessed for time spent segregating or redacting records unless such segregation or redaction is required by law or approved by the Supervisor of Records under a

Lieutenant Joseph Casey SPR23/1778 Page 4 August 15, 2023 petition under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). The Department’s July 24th Response In its July 24, 2023 response, the Department states: I am writing to provide you with further details regarding the good faith estimate for the time to search for and locate e-mail communications requested in relation to appeal, SPR23-1326. As to Items 3 and 6 in which you seek certain communications to or from the Medford Police Department’s administration, including myself as Chief of Police, as well as the Police Department’s administrative lieutenant, in order to locate all responsive communications you are seeking, a comprehensive search will need to be conducted of such police officials e-mail accounts for a several year time period as well as between such individuals and “municipal administration.” Given the records with the POST Commission and/or “municipal administration” requested, these electronic searches may only be conducted by the Police Chief and lieutenant and will require an extensive search of each inbox for several years to ensure all records are located. Specifically, the Chief’s Office and the lieutenant receive numerous communications via email that are informational in nature, either from POST itself or other persons or organizations related to POST. Therefore, a simple keyword electronic search for “POST” in the email accounts will provide records that you are not seeking in this request, again requiring the Chief and lieutenant to manually review the results of such a search for years. I further note that Police Department’s good faith searches of the keyword “POST” in these email accounts do not retrieve all communications with POST personnel given the contents of the particular e-mails. Therefore, such email accounts will need to be individually and manually reviewed to determine responsive records, which work has been included in the fee estimate previously provided in good faith. Given the Medford Police Department’s significant law enforcement and public safety responsibilities and staffing considerations, the Police Department is unable to reduce the good faith cost estimate in response to this request, and notes that you have been provided records previously at no charge. Based on the Department’s July 24th response, it continues to remain unclear why sixteen hours of employee time is needed to search for the responsive records. I continue to encourage the parties to communicate in order to facilitate producing records efficiently and affordably. The requestor may wish to narrow the scope of the request. G. L. c. 66, § l0(a)(i). The Department must use its knowledge of the records to facilitate providing any responsive records. G. L. c. 66, § l0(a)(vii) (an agency or municipality shall suggest a

Lieutenant Joseph Casey SPR23/1778 Page 5 August 15, 2023 reasonable modification of the scope of the request or offer to assist the requestor to modify the scope of the request if doing so would enable the agency or municipality to produce records sought more efficiently and affordably). For the reasons discussed above, I find the Department must revise its fee estimate or provide further explanation of how the fee assessed is expressly provided for and consistent with G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Raymond with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law, and its Regulations within ten (10) business days. A copy of any such response must be provided to this office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of this response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Jeff Raymond